Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deputy Cit Vs. John Tinson and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT47(Delhi)
These appeals are preferred by the revenue against the orders of the CIT (A) passed in different assessment years. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of, for the sake of convenience, by this single-consolidated order.We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record. Since all appeals are based upon the facts and findings of the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93, we feel it proper to adjudicate the appeal first for the assessment year 1992-93 vide I.T.Appeal No. 4660 (Del) of 1992. In this appeal, the revenue has assailed the order of the CIT (A) on various grounds, which are as under :- 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee's income was to be assessed as business income and not income from other sources without properly appreciating the material on record. He also ignored the fact that assessee's cases...
Prem Chadha Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)69
1. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of CIT(A) relating to asst. yr. 1991-92. The assessee is objecting in holding the disallowance of the claim of interest of Rs. 25,061 payable to Mrs.Anup Chadha under Section 24(b) [Section 24(1)(vi) was applicable for the asst. yr. 1991-92--Ed.] of the IT Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has constructed a house between 1982 to 1986. During this period the assessee has obtained loans from his wife Smt. Anup Chadha on various dates. The total loan as on 30th Jan., 1986 was of Rs. 64,500. On this amount, the interest was shown as payable by the assessee year after year. The deduction under Section 24(b) on account of interest payable was restricted by the AO to Rs. 5,000 for asst. yr. 1986-87. A copy of the assessment order for asst. yr, 1986-87 is placed at p. 10 of the paper book. Thereafter, the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 24(b) on account of interest payable on borrowed funds used for constru...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT307; 2004(76)DRJ245
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner corporation aggrieved by the orders dated August 12, 2002 and August 26, 1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. II in O.P. No. 252/92 on the basis of an application filed under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The aforesaid application was filed by the Corporation seeking approval of its decision to remove the respondent No.1 from service. The allegation against the respondent is that he was issuing tickets of less amount after collecting full fare charges from the passengers and an amount of Rs.21.70 paise was found less and, thereforee, he misconducted himself. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the basis of which a domestic enquiry was held and in the said domestic enquiry the respondent was found guilty. Consequently, the disciplinary authority removed the respondent from service of the corporation by order dated July 2, 1992. Along with the said order ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shree Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT505; 2004(76)DRJ252; [2005(104)FLR247]
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner corporation aggrieved by the orders dated March 17, 2003 and August 8, 2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. II in O.P. No. 125/94 on the basis of an application filed under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The aforesaid application was filed by the Corporation seeking approval of its decision to remove the respondent No. 1 from service. The allegation against the respondent is that he took full fare charges from the passengers for their journey but did not issue them tickets and, thereforee, he misconducted himself. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the basis of which a domestic enquiry was held and in the said domestic enquiry the respondent was found guilty. Consequently, the disciplinary authority removed the respondent from service of the corporation by order dated July 11, 1994. Along with the said order of removal, the corporation remitted full one...
Sethi Construction Company Vs. Gangotri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR453(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT696
R.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made on behalf of the petitioner M/s Sethi Construction Company seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator.2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of the present application are that respondent no.1 M/s Gangotri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (in short GEL) had entered into an agreement with the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (in short NTPC) dated 01.7.1998 for the construction of Notre Dame School Building at BTPS, Badarpur, New Delhi. M/s GEL in turn entered into an agreement with the petitioner dated 31.8.1999. Clause 5 of the agreement dated 31.8.1999 provided that all the disputes arising out of and between the parties i.e. M/s GEL and M/s Sethi Construction Company shall be brought before the Deputy General Manager (Civil), NTPC, Badarpur for settlement or arbitration and shall be within the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. It appears th...
Kesri Devi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT135; 2004(76)DRJ124
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks directions to respondent-MCD to immediately release all retiral benefits as also monthly pension due to her. Petitioner joined respondent-MCD as a Sweeper on 8th August, 1975. She continued in service without any break and was confirmed on 26.3.1991. The petitioner got superannuated on 31st December, 1999 on attaining the age of 60 years. 3. Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has unreasonably withheld retiral and pension benefits to which she is entitled. It is unfortunate that MCD is seeking to deny retiral and pension to an employee who has worked uninterruptedly for a period of 24 years.4. Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for respondent submits that the qualifying service for entitlement of pension should be minimum of 10 years and since she was confirmed in the year 1991, she had less than 10 year...
Frito-lay India and ors. Vs. Guru Prasad Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC537(Del)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, acts of unfair competition, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc., in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.2. Plaintiff No. 1, Frito Lay India is a company established under the Indian Laws and a subsidiary of the plaintiff No. 3, Pepsi Co India Holding Limited, which is a subsidiary of plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiffs are manufacturing Namkeens. i.e. 'Aloo Bhujia' under the mark 'Lehar' and other edibles in their distinctive packages, i.e. 'Pudina Twist'. 'Navratan Mix' and 'Moong Dal. Plaintiffs have been manufacturing and marketing snack products and beverages also. Similarly the plaintiffs have also adopted an innovative style for the 'Moong Dal' and the 'Navratan Mix' range of its products which is an original artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957.3. The gravamen and grievance of the plaintiffs is that the defendants ...
N.K. Malhan Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)938
ORDERB.R Jain A.M. : These cross-appeals arise from the order dated 25-6-2002, of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) New Delhi, for the block period 1-4-1989 to 27-7-1999, setting out the grounds as underassessed's grounds :1. 'That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) III, has erred in confirming the action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act and proceedings which 'are barred by time and also assessment are bad in law.2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition in the hands of the appellant of Rs. 1,65,000 made by assessing officer on account of interest during the assessment year 1998-99. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,000 for the assessment year 1990-91 on account of unexplained FDR of,Rs. 50,000, dated 27-5-1989.4. That, on the facts...
Malhan Builders Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)920
ORDERB.R. Jain, A.M.These cross appeals arise from the order dated 26-6-2002, of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-III, New Delhi, for the block period 1-4-1989, to 27-7-1999, setting out the grounds as under :assessed's grounds :'1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) -III has erred in confirming the action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act and consequential action and issue of notice under section 158BC of the Act by the learned assessing officer which are bad in law.2. (a) That, on the facts and iin the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in,confirming the addition of Rs. 9,36,000 and Rs. 7,62,000, based on the valuation report of property No. B-42, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi, sold to Dr. Praveen Khilnani and Shri Amarjeet Singh, respectively.(b) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,9...
D.D. Malhan Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)947
ORDERB.R. Jain, A.M.These 'cross-appeals arise from the order dated 28-6-2002, of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-III, New Delhi, for the block period 1-4-1989 to 27-7-1999, setting out the grounds as underassessed's grounds :'1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals)-III, . has erred in confirming the, action. under section 132 of the Income Tax Act and consequential action and issue of notice under section 158BC of the Act by the learned assessing officer which are bad in law.2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,53,847 during the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01 on account of purchase of Australian dollars.3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,50,000 for the assessment year 1990-91 as unexplained income of the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »